The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the use of circumstantial evidence, and the careful evaluation of witness testimonies and medical evidence in criminal cases.

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Assailing the judgment dated 31.5.2014, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 2-R/7 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. vs. Anil Chauhan alias Anu, whereby the accused stands convicted of the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 452, 364, 376 (2)(f) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 452 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 364 of the IPC, life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC; and life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, he has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. In crux it is the case of the prosecution that on 23.7.2012, accused Anil Chauhan, after committing house trespass with an intent of causing hurt, not only assaulted complainant Rajinder (PW-1) and his wife Anita (PW-2) but forcibly took away their minor daughter, aged two and a half years (name concealed) and after committing sexual assault, murdered her. As such, accused stands charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 452, 364, 376(2)(f) and 302 of the IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

3. The accused stands convicted on all counts and directed to serve the requisite sentence of imprisonment as also pay fine. Correctness of findings returned by the learned trial Court is subject matter of the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. V.S. Rathour, learned counsel, on behalf of the appellant as also Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondent-State. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find the findings returned by the trial Court to be based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.

5. From the evidence emanating from the record, it is clear that none saw the accused commit rape and kill the deceased. Such fact is sought to be established by the prosecution by way of circumstantial evidence. With regard to the offence of house trespass and kidnapping/abduction of the minor, prosecution seeks to establish the charge both by way of direct and circumstantial evidence.

6. It is a settled principle of law that prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and more so in relation to the charged offence which is sought to be established by way of circumstantial evidence. It is also a settled proposition of law that when there is no direct evidence of crime, the guilt of the accused can be proved by circumstantial evidence, but then the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature, to fully connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and the proved circumstances should be consistent, only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, being totally inconsist